Matter of Estime, Interim Decision Number 3029

• Decision Date: 12 August 1987
• Docket Number: A-24522688.,Interim Decision Number 3029
• Parties: MATTER OF ESTIME. In Visa Petition Revocation Proceedings.
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

19 I&N Dec. 450

MATTER OF ESTIME.

In Visa Petition Revocation Proceedings.

Interim Decision Number 3029

A-24522688.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board August 12, 1987.

(1) Pursuant to section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (1982), a notice of intention to revoke approval of a visa petition is not properly issued unless there is "good and sufficient cause" and the notice includes a specific statement not only of the facts underlying the proposed action, but also of the supporting evidence.

(2) "Good and sufficient cause" for issuing such a notice exists when the evidence of record at the time of issuance, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial.

(3) There is "good and sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 205 of the Act to revoke approval of a visa petition if the evidence of record at the time of the decision, including any explanation or rebuttal submitted by the petitioner, warrants a denial based on the petitioner's failure to meet his or her burden of proof.

(4) A decision to revoke approval of a visa petition will not be sustained where the notice of intention to revoke was not properly issued.

(5) A decision to revoke approval of a visa petition will be sustained where a petitioner fails to make a timely explanation or submission of evidence to the Immigration and Naturalization Service after receipt of a properly issued notice of intention to revoke.

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Domenic J. Mizio, Esquire Suite 1105 350 Broadway New York, New York 10013

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members.

The lawful permanent resident petitioner applied for preference status for the beneficiary as her husband under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2) (1982). In a decision dated February 13, 1986, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Adjudications Center ("RAC") director revoked his prior approval of the visa petition on the ground that the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary is not valid. The petitioner has appealed. The record will be remanded to the RAC director for further proceedings.

The record reflects that the Service approved the visa petition on April 29, 1982, and that it was forwarded to the American consulate at Montreal. The consul returned the visa petition to the RAC director, noting a number of discrepancies between the parties' answers during a September 11, 1985, interview. In a letter dated January 2, 1986, the RAC director advised the petitioner that he intended to deny the petition, concluding on the basis of these discrepancies that there was substantial reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner's marriage to the beneficiary. See Matter of McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980). That letter granted the petitioner 15 days to submit evidence to overcome the grounds for revocation of the visa petition because the petitioner apparently had not submitted any evidence or response.

On appeal, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did timely respond to the RAC director's notice of intention to deny. The petitioner submitted a copy of a January 13, 1986, letter, which was properly addressed to the Service. The date of notarization of the response establishes that it was prepared in a timely manner. This response addresses the discrepancies relied on by the RAC director in denying the petition.

Under section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 (1982), the Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems "good and sufficient cause," revoke the approval of any visa petition. Those portions of the regulations relating to evidentiary requirements in visa petition proceedings apply, of course, to the revocation of approved visa petitions. Thus, with exceptions relating to classified information, the petitioner must be permitted to inspect the record of proceedings, must be...